• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is why the Castle Doctrine is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if the kid opened the door? That’s not justification enough to shoot him.

      Castle Doctrine only applies to someone entering your home against your will. So if the kid was shot outside the front door then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. If he was inside the home, then under Castle Doctrine it’s reasonable to assume the stranger invading your home doesn’t have your best interests in mind and that you don’t have a duty to flee from them but instead may defend your home as an extension of self defense.

      Usually the line is drawn at the threshold - if they’re outside the threshold then Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply. So if he was literally shot for knocking at the door/ringing the doorbell then Castle Doctrine wouldn’t apply., but if he was shot while trespassing inside the home…

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      According to the law, it is. (Even without castle doctrine a random stranger trying to gain entry into your house is usually grounds for self defense).

      If the kid didn’t open the door, then I agree with you. But even the kid admitted to at least grabbing the handle of the door. I’d personally never do that at stranger’s or even an acquaintance’s house.

      From a moral standpoint, please don’t try to walk into stranger’s houses uninvited.